Guess What ? SLR Has A Problem....

O--Good Idea. I thank you for making me aware of The Fl.Statue 720.305
I will have our attorney compose the Violation Notice & mail it sign, certified, return receipt.
Again Thanks, BJ

It is a good idea for any member or members to sign a Violations letter to the Association AND to the individual Directors for a violation of 5-8 Pet Rules---notwithstanding the fact that we do not yet know which version of the 5-8 Pet Rules was duly adopted by the owners under due process according to the Bylaws.

A review of the recorded documents shows that there are 3 versions of Pet Rules recorded over the life of SLohA. The only one that can be recognized at this point, until validation of subsequent rules, is the original in the Covenants.  However, the subsequent rules do not affect the basic violations incorporated in the original covenant so that issue is moot.  The Covenant has clearly been violated by MANBOD on several counts and are summarized below:

Pets can be kept on lot in reasonable numbers
(Feral cat colony is not a reasonable #)

Pets can be kept as pets for pleasure and use of occupant
(IT is not an occupant of a lot ie an owner, guest or tenant--she is an employee of a contractor-guest during business hours for 40 hours/week and her behavior, presence and use of common property is under the control of owner/members--the BOD)

Pets must be kept under control at all times
(Feral cats roam freely and settle on porch and furniture without restraint or attendance by any owner-member or authorized guest or tenant.)

Pets cannot become a nuisance by "barking or other act"

(Feral cats have been observed napping on rocking chairs on the office porch, darting under cars and across walking paths and pooping on owners' properties.  Feral cats are recognized as a community health and safety hazard by Polk County and other expert agencies)

The rationale here is that BOD cannot discriminately enforce the SAME RULE.  For instance, one cannot assert "If you don't enforce the rule against commercial activity on the property, then you can't enforce the pet rule"--that doesn't hold water (except for the common sense notion of enforcing all rules).  

But, the problem of selective enforcement comes into sharp focus when it is the same rule applied differently to members.  The Board Directors are Members!   A review of court cases will reveal that the greatest number of court cases in FL involve breach of covenants and selective enforcement.  This situation involves BOTH!

When the letter is sent, it must be answered and Violators can elect to be heard by the Violations Committee.  Of course, this is ludicrous because the Violations Committee was appointed by the same people who allegedly violated the Covenant!  There will have to be a special committee formed from among members and this process is not addressed in the statutes.  However, it is practiced in the larger arena ie congress when there is a question of some issue, a special committee is formed to investigate.  This process might be best addressed by a petition for a Special Meeting. This process will serve to open up to community scrutiny the entire process of administration of Rules and Violations, and memorialize and legitimize the consistent application of rules to ALL members of SLohA--not just selected (targeted) ones.

More importantly, it will open up the conversation in SLR as whether the owners want a Rules Violations entity!  Our governing documents do not provide for such an entity.  It has been balloted on at least two occasions and FAILED!  Is MANBOD going to continue to shove this down our throats despite members' wishes just because the State decided it would legislate that Boards have this authority over the governing documents (subject of a future post).